THE ORIGIN OF NIGERIA: GOD OF JUSTICE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN UNJUST POLITICAL ORDER. Appeal to President Obasanjo not to rewrite Nigerian History.{ PART 3}

Written by Prof. Omo Omoruyi

OBASANJO’S "THEORY" OF STATE

I was asked a question once by an American student what was the authority on which President Obasanjo based his "theory of state". I could not readily answer the question. His handlers are still to come to grip with this elementary question. Merely asserting without demonstrating how "God is a Nigerian" is not only dangerous for the multi-religious society of Nigeria, it is too simplistic and sometime borne out of laziness and maybe frustration. This is when one simply stop planning and thinking and relying on calling on God. We should pray that God should give us the ability to think plan and resolve issues. Why do we use God to explain many unjust acts of men?

What the President does too often in the name of God reminds one of the usual explanation of Muslim friends in the north that "Allah gives power to who so ever Allah wants and Allah can take that power away when He likes". I first heard of this from my former Chairman, Alhaji Yusuf Maitama Sule in 1993 after the annulment. This was recently attributed to him Dr. Alex Ekwueme as the basis for Alhaji Maitama Sule’s decision to withdraw in favor of Alhaji Shehu Shagari in December 1978 presidential race. This kind of reasoning goes against all grains of democratic thought that is anchored on the wishes of the people of all faiths (Christians, Muslim and Believers in African Traditional Religion) at election.

Allah’s wish was unfortunately used as the justification of coups in the past since these successful coups had been an "intra-Muslim" affair or an "intra-clique" affair. Could this be true? What would be the interpretation by Christians? Those who offered this simplistic explanation or justification seemed to ignore the implication of coup. Did Allah bless the shedding of blood of fellow Nigerians, Muslims and non-Muslims alike in the name of power? This is what coup is about. It is about the violent seizure of power. It is about killing for power or blood letting for power, simple. The office holders and their supporters are meant to be killed if they resist. This is the conduct of military officers in the name of Allah in the past. Again this is a conflict of civilizations. Christianity would not approve of coups that involve shedding of innocent blood.

What is disturbing to me whenever I recall how many coups were conceived and announced in the past is the role of Christian political generals as the implementers of the Allah’s wish. I still recall the coup of 1975 and 1985 announced by Col. Joseph Garba and Col. Joshua Dongayaro both Christians respectively ushering General Murtala and General Babangida both Muslims respectively. Muslims take their faith seriously but Christians pay lukewarm attitude to their faith.

There is another disturbing aspect to the use of God to justify the unjust act of public officials. This is why it is disturbing for President Obasanjo to argue in this manner. It is dangerous and akin to the terrorists who justify all manner of killing in the name of Allah, if he is not careful with his rhetoric.

DOES ALLAH JUSTIFY COUP AND HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS

Nigeria never heard of the hand of Allah or God in the emergence of Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon in 1966. We did not read of Allah/God in his overthrow by General Murtala Muhammed. Policy issues were used to justify the actions of the coup plotters in the coup speeches of 1966 and 1975 respectively.

One started to read of the work of Allah in the intra-Muslim affairs from the coup in December 1983 led by General Muhamadu Buhari. He had to find justifications in moving against a fellow Muslim who Allah gave power through the ballot box. Later what General Babangida did on August 27, 1985 in getting rid of General Buhari on a Sallah Day also had Allah’s blessing. One recalls on this occasion, the three Majors sent to arrest General Buhari met him before he commenced his prayer. On this occasion, the ram General Buhari killed was still to be eaten and the beneficiary of the coup was planning to go the prayer ground at Minna. Did Allah sanction these acts both in Lagos and in Minna?

Another disturbing issue was whether Allah blessed the catalogue of injustices in the land under these rulers? Alhaji Shagari’s account in his memoir did not attribute what he suffered in the hands of General Buhari to Allah. Allah could not have commanded General Buhari to inflict the untold human right violations on fellow Muslims in 1984.

We may also ask why did the same northern leaders who rejected what General Buhari did to them as the work of Satan and in 1993 justify the actions of the political generals when it came to June 12?

What happened to the June 12 and his winner in the hands of clique even though justified by those who preached Allah, did not have the blessing of God or the blessing of those who practice African Traditional Religion. The former Sultan of Sokoto and many Muslim clerics in the north appealed to their colleagues in the south especially in the Yoruba land that "if Allah wanted Abiola to be the President nobody would have stopped him"! The meaning of this kind of religious justification of annulment and of the detention unto death of the winner of that election and other human rights violations was in bad taste. Again there was a conflict of civilization never appreciated. What did God tell Preacher Obasanjo in Abacha’s Gulag?

Incidentally, God told Chief Obasanjo the opposite of this in Abacha’s Gulag and Preacher/Chief Obasanjo told Nigerians and the international community so in June 1998 that the issues in the annulment should be resolved so as to move the country forward. Why did President Obasanjo abandon what God told him in Abacha’s Gulag as soon as he stepped into the Aso Rock?

What the Muslims were telling the Nigerian voters when Muslim political generals were inflicting inhuman treatment on fellow Nigerians was frightening. One wonders if this could be true in Islamic political thought. Few questions will be pertinent here.

Are they saying that Allah used the annullists to deny Nigerians their democratic rights in 1993?

Are they saying that Allah used General Buhari to sack the elected President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari?

Are they saying that Allah used General Babangida to sack the military Head of State, General Muhammadu Buhari in 1985?

Are they saying that Allah used General Babangida to cancel the presidential primaries in November 1992?

Is there some continuity in Allah’s acts between the act of annulment and the Address to the Nigerian people and the international community on the new transition program by General Abdulsalami Abubakar on July 20, 1998?

There was; one only needs to read the analogy General Abubakar drew between what happened in the past and the act of annulment as his basis for asking Nigerians to forget about the injustice in the annulment.

What Nigerians should have been asking is whether Allah inflicted on the country the most horrendous crime on the Nigerian people through the denial of their right to human dignity under General Abacha between 1993 and 1998?

Aren’t they concerned that Allah could be said to bless the reign of General Abacha?

In all the Churches I attended and in all the prayer groups I participated in Nigeria before I left the country in 1995, the reign of General Abacha was the subject of prayer. I was told that this practice continued in Churches after 1993 until General Abacha died in June 1998. Chief Obasanjo confessed to the power of God when he was in Abacha’s Gulag. In all the Churches he attended after his release, fellow worshippers told him of the power of God and he too confessed and danced because it was made manifest in his life. This is the way Christians see life in general and this was the way they saw the reign of General Abacha. To Christians, the reign of General Abacha was not of God even if it received Allah’s blessing. This again was a conflict of civilization. General Abacha sacked one Sultan and installed another all in the name of Allah. Just as the former Sultan was the representative of the former Muslim political general and led Nigeria to the assume the full membership status of the OIC, the new Sultan also assumed the same role as the representative of General Abacha at the OIC meeting in Iran.

Of course when the "prince of Kano", General Sani Abacha died in June 1998 through the intervention of God, Allah again appeared to the geo-ethno-military ruling clique counseling a new strategy.

Allah counseled the clique not to go for another member of the clique either from the military wing or civilian wing of the clique.

Allah told the clique not to go for an Igbo. We saw how Dr. Alex Ekwueme was humiliated in the party of which he was a part founder. We saw how the Igbo leaders were pushed aside in the APP, even though, they as former agents of the political generals who annulled the June 12 and sustained it between 1993 and 1998 under General Abacha, thought that they were the faithful allies of the clique.

We saw how Allah told the clique to go for an Egba Chief that was put in the Gulag according to the wishes of Allah.

If within-the-clique succession was not of Allah after the death of General Abacha, Allah told them that going for the Egba Chief to reign for a given period was seen as a tactical retreat within the overall strategy of permanent northern control of Nigeria. What was the given time frame, a period? This has become the question since 1999 especially when the important members of the clique are no longer happy with President Obasanjo. When and how will the clique come up with a scheme to inflict on the country another member of the clique? This was why I raised the question in the past, what did Chief Obasanjo promise the clique? President Obasanjo never answered this question. The question was as relevant then as it is today, when the key members of the clique such as President Shagari and other key leaders of the Arewa Consultative Forum openly started talking of marginalization of the north and the betrayal of the north and all that.

One would have expected President Obasanjo to respond to the northern assertion and accusation. Maybe he would do so as part of his campaign for the 2003 election. He has to as he faces so many competitors from the north on the platform of Sharia and on the platform of how to reverse the northern marginalisation.

President Obasanjo would also say what he did for other areas. He would also say how he responded to the problems of other areas such as the quest for resource control by the people of the oil producing areas. He would have to say what he did for the Igbo. Of course, Nigerians at large would want him to tell them the effort he made to resolve the lingering political problems since 1999.

(culled from www.nigerdeltacongress.com. First published July 2002)

THE ORIGIN OF NIGERIA: GOD OF JUSTICE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN UNJUST POLITICAL ORDER. Appeal to President Obasanjo not to rewrite Nigerian History. {PART 2}

Written by Prof. Omo Omoruyi

NIGERIA, "A GEOGRAPHICAL EXPRESSION"

Arising from the way Nigeria was put together by Britain, the literature on Nigeria is replete with such terms as "Nigeria is a geographical entity" or "Nigeria is a geographical expression" or "Nigeria is an artificial creation" or "Nigeria is a colonial creation". Let us examine two issues that arose from the foregoing.

One, at independence, there was nothing original to the term, Nigeria as that term was conferred on the British "amalgamated real estate" by the wife of the first colonial Governor General, Lady Lugard.

Second, at independence, Nigeria was born but Nigerians were still to be born even up till today. What we needed since independence was a plan by her leaders, civilian or military to make Nigeria command the loyalty of her citizens from all the ethnic nationalities. Nigerians never did.

There are three senses in which the effort at developing Nigerians should have been met and how we fell short since October 1, 1960.

One would have thought that our political leaders would have striven to make Nigeria "a self-sufficient system of action’, as the Sociologist would say. One would have thought that its leaders would have tried to create ‘a more perfect union’, as the American would say. One would have thought that its leaders would have made it a nation in the tradition of the nation state in Europe.

Did the leaders who succeeded the British succeed in building a "self-sufficient system of action" or "a more perfect union" or "a nation state" since October 1, 1960? The answer to these issues should be obvious by now. They failed to create Nigerians up till today.

The military intervention in politics since 1966 did not only complicate the above issues, it further divided the Nigerian society into two classes of the permanent rulers and the permanent ruled and followers. Worse still the military created a new class of Nigerian leaders called in the country in general in the south in particular "militicians"? Consequently we now have in Nigeria a civilian political class that has a low self-esteem of itself and feels it cannot rule except with the leadership provided by the same retired military officers that "pauperized" the civilian political class, misruled the country and plundered the Nigerian oil economy since 1966. This is the level of political development of Nigeria today.

The so-called political class today should be embarrassed that no one is mentioning their names as potential presidential candidates. Aren’t they embarrassed that the only persons that are being discussed as potential presidential candidates and as competitors with President Obasanjo in 2003 are the same political generals of yesterday, Generals Babangida, Buhari and Nwachukwu)? I have nothing against any retired military officers who want to run for political office now or in the future. There are basic questions that should have been asked that are never asked by Nigerians. What do they stand for? We do not know and no one is asking. What are the visions of these former "political generals" for Nigeria’s future from their past? They have not told the Nigerian people the relationship between their past, their present and their plan for the future of Nigeria.

Unfortunately the media columnists are not asking them some tough questions about the relationship between their past, their present and their vision for the future of Nigeria. I raised some of the issues in the past in my essay "After Obasanjo Who/What" and in my five-part essay under the rubric, "The Generals Are Coming: Should they be Welcome" and I do not want to rehash the issues in this medium. The points I made in these essays are still valid and I would call readers’ attention to the archives of www.nigerdeltacongress.com and in the Nigerian newspapers such as This Day, Vanguard and Guardian.

REEXAMINATION OF TWO THEORIES OF CREATION

Recently Nigerians are faced with the theory of creation of Nigeria advanced by the Nigerian President, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo that God created it. This is in sharp contrast with what we were told in schools and what is still being taught in schools today in Nigeria and all over the world that attributes the founding of Nigeria to the British colonialism. It was on the latter score that Chief Richard Akinjide’s theory should been appreciated. Nigeria, according to Chief Richard Akinjide who paid tribute to me for being able to use the documents about the amalgamation to explain the annulment of the June 12, 1993 Presidential election. He was very blunt after examining the documents that led to the amalgamation that I used in my book, The Tale of June 12 that after all what Britain did in Nigeria was a "fraud".

Chief Akinjide, like other political leaders from the south wallowed in the same fraud for too long. They, as politicians suffered this fraud for so long; they accepted the status quo for so long hence one is amazed by their new position that everything should be done to recreate Nigeria so as to make it meaningful to all ethnic nationalities. This is the position I consistently argued for since 1993. This was based on my view from what I knew about the issues in the annulment that Nigeria would never be the same again unless these issues were resolved. One should acknowledge that this is also the position advanced by such eminent jurist as Chief Rotimi Williams leading the "Frontiers" and other eminent Nigerians, such as Chiefs Emeka Anyaoku and Ola Vincent and Alhaji Babantunde Jose. But our President dismissed these people in his usual language that I would not like to repeat here. He told Nigerians that he is the sovereign by virtue of the fact that the Nigerian people elected him in 1999. Hence, he argued that there was no reason for another body to be convened to discuss and resolve the lingering political issues afflicting the country since 1993. Time will prove him wrong. His legacy would be measured by the way he abandoned the need for bringing about the fundamental restructuring of Nigeria during his first term in office.

What is embarrassing is President Obasanjo’s new theory that he propounded on May 29, 2002, which is his self-proclaimed "Democracy Day" that "God is a Nigerian". To paraphrase him, he opined that God must have a purpose for putting so many black people under one roof called Nigeria and consequently, he further opined that God created Nigeria, a huge state for the upliftment of Black people in the world. I am surprised that up till now no one has called the President to order.

A content analysis of the pronouncements of the President and other members of the political class and the developments in the country since 1999 leads one to one conclusion. It should be obvious that God being a "Just God" could not sanction the "unjust political order" that characterizes what we have in Nigeria since 1960. The picture of what is going on in the various parts of the country does not show that God blesses the injustice all over the country.

As part of the Democracy Day activities, he attended the Special Lecture at Abuja. He was surrounded by Ahmed Salim of Tanzania, a non-believer in "one person and one vote" or in the "multi-party system" all his adult life as a politician in Tanzania and Chief Tony Enahoro who has no faith in the Presidential System that took some of us our political life in the Constituent Assembly in 1977/78 to evolve because it is good for the minorities in the country. Mr./ Ahmed Salim was the Keynote Speaker and Chief Enahoro was the Chairman of the occasion. Did President Obasanjo appreciate that while he was having his celebration at Abuja, the country was not in the jubilating mood? Some of them were openly asking what was their democracy dividend? The mood of the country as gathered from the content analysis of the various complaints in the media as summed up by the President in October 1 2001 is one of dismay. In fact, this was summarized by the Herald Tribune of February 25, 2002 that

Obasanjo is highly admired as an eloquent spokesman for African democracy and development. Regrettably, his record at home is far less impressive.

Shouldn’t one come to the conclusion that May 29 is not history but "histrionics", because they are playing games with a serious issue? This is why one should call May 29 the "DEMONCRAZY DAY".

I am aware of the many requests made to the President, especially on June 12 every year for the President to make history by recognizing June 12 and not May 29 as Democracy Day. Those who are making this demand on President Obasanjo realized how he quickly recognized General Shehu Yar’Adua immediately he assumed office. Without attempting to denigrate the life of General Shehu Yar’ Adua, I found many contradictions in the attitude of General Yar’Adua to democracy especially after the annulment. Did the President know that General Yar’Adua flipped flopped on his defense of democratic rights of Nigerians arising from June 12? Even though he supported Chief Abiola for the June 12 and immediately after, he colluded with the military President to sustain the annulment on the erroneous belief and assurance from General Babangida that an opportunity would arise for him to run for the office. This is the explanation for his sustaining the annulment and the evolution of the Interim National Government (ING). This is a matter of record and not of hearsay. This is what history would say of his commitment to democracy. He buckled under after sometime and he never explained the reason for this until he died.

The question one is still asking President Obasanjo till today is why could President Obasanjo not recognize Chief Abiola? Those who are asking this question are not just asking him to do the impossible. They are asking him to do what God told him to do that he confessed to after his release from the Abacha’s Gulag. To God everything just is possible.

Those who are demanding that President Obasanjo should recognize MKO Abiola ought to or should have appreciated the basis of Chief Obasanjo’s coming to power. President Obasanjo is of the view that for him to recognize June 12 would have amounted to a betrayal of the pact he entered into with the clique that brought him into office and could have amounted to a counterrevolutionary act. Would this have amounted to a conflict of religions or a conflict of civilizations as some would put it today after the 9:11 in the US? God told Obasanjo in the Gulag that solution based on justice should be found to June 12. On the other hand, Allah told the annullist that June 12 should be denied the winner of that election and that justice based on that election should be denied.

For Obasanjo to yield to what God told him in the Gulag could trigger a backlash from the anti-June 12 zealots in the military to force him out of office. In any case those who managed his election such as Chief Tony Anenih, the former Chairman of the party that gave away the June 12 in July 1993 was around to make him recognize the danger of non-recognition of the June 12. Of course, his security handlers and serving with him in the Presidency such as General Aliyu Mohammed Gusau, the National Security Adviser to the President, who was in the clique that annulled the June 12 would cry foul if the President should attempt to recognize the June 12. The question is why should the distinguished Chief from Egba land agree to be the candidate of the PDP on the anti-June 12 platform?

What bothers me is not in his decision to accept the invitation. What bothers me is that the President does not seem to see the injustice in what he is doing in pretending that June 12 did not exist as a historical fact. He should have appreciated that it is odd for him not to accord recognition to June 12.

What bothers me is the hypocrisy in the profession of faith in God in whatever he does and failing to carry out what he told Nigerians as originating from God. The President who talks about God in everything he does, ought to or should have appreciated that it is not in furtherance of God’s work on earth to ignore the voice of the people as recorded in their vote of June 12, 1993. Is the President saying that what God blessed on June 12, 1993 should be ignored? Does the President not acknowledge the saying that the voice of the people is the voice of God? What is a better determination of the voice of the people beside their vote?

Nigerians are asking the critical question of when does the President acknowledge and do what God says? He seems to pick and choose events as when he likes.

Nigerians are asking the President if he forget what he told Nigerians on June 20, 1998 at the Baptist Church, Abeokuta? I am referring to what Nigerians once heard from the mouth of preacher Obasanjo himself before a packed Church in Abeokuta on June 20, 1998 immediately he was released from Abacha’s Gulag. He told Nigerians in a clear language what God told him in Abacha’s Gulag about serious issues.

God told Preacher Obasanjo something about the June 12, as follows:

Once again as God has given me opportunity I will comment on the election of June 12. I have always held the view that the non-resolution of the issue will remain an indelible blot on our body politic and a bad and dangerous precedent for political development in this country. It forebodes ill for the destiny of Nigeria.

Preacher Obasanjo warned:

Sweeping it under the carpet, and pretending that it does not exist does not solve it; rather it makes it to incubate and fester.

Preacher Obasanjo then warned:

Let it not be said that by act of omission or commission there are two classes of Nigerians as far political, economic and social participations are concerned.

Preacher Obasanjo then pleaded with the power of God on the pulpit in the following words:

Let all Nigerians have a sense of belonging and a stake in the affairs of Nigeria. Peace and unity, which are preconditions for development and progress must be founded on justice, equality of opportunity and equity.

Finally Preacher Obasanjo left his listeners with what God told him about the non-resolution of June 12 in the following words:

Without the resolution of the events of June 12, we may not have a firm and solid foundation to erect the structure of democracy on a lasting basis,apart from the implications for unity, and stability in the country.

On the military, God told Preacher Obasanjo to tell the Nigerian people the followings: Today we are all victims and eyewitnesses, Let me venture and to give another warning no matter what names I may be called or what threat or danger maybe involved. Our military personnel have generally become inured to corruption, lying, selfishness, lack of patriotism, avarice, and character and behaviour unbecoming of a good military.

On what should be done about the military in order to have democracy, Preacher Obasanjo had this to tell the Nigerian people:

They must change and be motivated by ideals of patriotism, nationalism, morality, and the good of the nation, rather than the good of themselves at the expense of the country politically and economically.

Making a case for the good ones in the military, Preacher Obasanjo had this to say about the bad influence of the bad ones:

In the recent past, the bad ones have gained ascendancy.

Preacher Obasanjo then appealed to the Nigerian people as to what should be done in future, if the military made that early morning announcement about taking over of government. Preacher Obasanjo told Nigerians what they should do in the following words:

Nigerians must resolve that any future military adventurism into our political life must be met with non-violent resistance and total withdrawal of services –public and private—-complete non-participation non-fraternization and non-cooperation.

Preacher Obasanjo then recommended to the future lawmaker what should be done in the following words:

Stiff punishment must be prescribed for those who covertly or overtly break this national resolve.

On the mode of resolving the lingering political crisis arising from the annulment Preacher Obasanjo had this to say:

I believe that it is never too late for patriotic men and women of goodwill in this country to get together and dialogue to find generally acceptable solution to this unnecessary problem.

For the above see Kayode Olarenwaju’s account in the Vanguard June 21, 1998 with such quotes from the Sermon by Preacher Obasanjo as "Fadile begged me in prison"; "No Democracy without June 12" and "God used me to save others".

Nigerians should ask their President some tough questions such as:

Why did he forget what God told him in Abacha’s Gulag? What happened to his prophecies of June 1998 when those who made him President approached him? Was he lying when he made those prophecies? Why does he now believe that Nigerians who heard him in June 1998 say one thing about what God told him and abandoned it after he became the President and was in a position to implement the prophesy? Does he not know that this is at the root of the credibility crisis facing him today?

Arising from the foregoing questions, I was forced to remind the President in a two-part essay in 2000 that he should go back to that sermon that I called in the essay, "Sermon on Olumo Rock". When President Obasanjo uses God’s name today in what he does in office, he forgets that he once used God’s name immediately after he was released from prison. How long would he be allowed to use God’s name in vain?

IMPLICATION OF OBASANJO’S THEORY OF CREATION

General Olusegun Obasanjo, the President in the Vanguard of July 19, 2000 opined, "God knows why Nigeria was created". He went on to argue that "God created Nigeria for Nigeria to be a great country where no tribe will dominate or subjugate others". Is this true? What is the President’s authority for this assertion, when Nigerians are feeling some kind of subjugation here and there?

Another very dangerous impression, in fact, a dangerous claim in the President’s theory is that his Presidency was ordained by God or that he was sent by God to save Nigeria from many years of misrule in the hands of bad leaders. Consequently he told Nigerians that since Nigeria was God’s creation and since God ordained his Presidency, he would refuse to be a bad leader. Finally he prayed to God "to take him away from this job if he became a bad leader". How this would come about is not made clear. He would never yield to public opinion because the opinion of Nigerian people may be at variance with what God is telling him. This is why his constant refrain, of all that call for "prayer fasting and seeking God’s face before announcing his "self-succession" was very disturbing to me. I am sure to many Christians, this was also disturbing.

It is my view that the issue is not whether one believes in the efficacy of prayer, fasting and seeking God’s face. The issue is how one goes about it so as not to become a "hypocrite" as defined by Jesus Christ in Matthew 6.5. I have no doubt that Chief Obasanjo knows what a "hypocrite’ is in the Bible. He ought to have known this from the lessons he received from various settings under the Baptist Mission in Abeokuta on how to pray. He should have known that how to pray is a serious matter in the Holy Bible. Does President Obasanjo know that he is daily breaching what Jesus teaches us Christians on how to pray in the Gospel according to St. Matthew 6: 5-7? Does he know that he is behaving like a "hypocrite"? Jesus defined hypocrites as those who

"Pray-------on the corners of the streets That they may be seen by men".

(Matthew 6:5).

Jesus also warned Christians about vain repetition……..for the Father knows the things you have need of before you ask him". (Matthew 6:7).

On what Christians should do if they want to pray, Jesus enjoins Christians to do the followings: Go to your room; And when you have shut the door, Pray to your Father who in the secret place; And Your father who sees in secret will reward you openly. (Matthew 6:6) It is after all these that we commence the Lord’s Prayer.

I recall another disturbing incident during the reconciliatory dance or exchange of partners or wives between the President and the former Senate President, Dr Chuba Okadigbo during the house warming ceremony. The President wanted to show off his knowledge of the Bible in a gathering involving Christians, Muslim and others. On that occasion, President Obasanjo likened the Official Residence of the Senate President that he was opening to a country and he then introduced the Biblical injunction that unless God builds a house all the work of the builders might be in vain. This is true; did the President know that this Biblical injunction also applied to the country? He should have alerted the leaders of Nigeria that Nigeria as was put together did not have the blessing of God. The only way to explain the lingering problems afflicting the country since 1960 is that since God does not bless the country at its creation, those who have been laboring in it since 1960 have been laboring in vain. God does not bless the country conceived in injustice/ Maybe what God has been telling the leaders of Nigeria, military and civilian is that Nigeria should be renegotiated and recreated and made a system of justice.

(culled from www.nigerdeltacongress.com. First published July 2002)

THE ORIGIN OF NIGERIA: GOD OF JUSTICE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH AN UNJUST POLITICAL ORDER. Appeal to President Obasanjo not to rewrite Nigerian History. (PART 1)

By Prof. Omo Omoruyi

WHAT OUR BOOKS TELL US ABOUT NIGERIA

I once had the occasion to challenge the assertion of President Olusegun Obasanjo on the origin of Nigeria in my essay published by Vanguard. In the essay, I reviewed the contribution of Chief Richard Akinjide on the same subject. While President Obasanjo attributed the creation of Nigeria to God, Chief Akinjide called what the British did in Nigeria as a colossal fraud. I thought the President of Nigeria was just joking and maybe trying out an idea that he knew would have problem making it to stick. Why did he not drop the matter when everyone in Nigeria seems to be convinced that the Nigerian project since its creation is acknowledged as patently unjust to many groups in Nigeria? Should it not have been obvious that since God is a just God any unjust project like Nigeria should not have been associated with God? God is a just God and could not therefore be associated with an unjust act. But recently there has been a persistent attribution of God as the creator of Nigeria to the extent that anyone who dares to question the colonial basis of Nigeria the President quickly calls one all kinds of names. In fact, those who question the President mischaracterization of what Britain did in Nigeria are deemed to have committed a sin in the eyes of President Obasanjo. It is this persistent attribution that God is the creator of Nigeria that is making me to further do this essay.

This essay is not meant to question the fact that God is the source of knowledge and of human understanding and the giver of all things. But we see the "gilded tomb with worms in fold" and we call it the work of God! That is not fair. Which God, one may ask? I am arguing that God means different thing to different faith. But President Obasanjo is a Christian. As a Christian, I know what God means that revealed Himself to believers in three different ways through the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. Christians do not invoke the name of God in vain so I was taught in my first day of being exposed to the Bible. This is one of the Ten Commandments. The Holy Bible is clear on this as

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Exodus 20:7

I am worried with the way the Nigerian President plays with God’s name in virtually everything he does.

WHAT WE ARE TOLD IN SCHOOL ABOUT NIGERIA

There are two senses when we talk about "Nigeria". In the first sense, we are concerned with the name, Nigeria, This is like all human beings that must be given names as a way of differentiating one from the other. Who gave us the name Nigeria? We should ask the President that tough question. Was it God? We could ask, how do we come about the name we carry in our daily lives?

The second sense is that we are concerned with how the territory that goes by the name Nigeria came into being? There is no doubt that the name has no meaning in various languages as far as I know. To many people the name does not invoke positive sentiments. In fact it invokes negative sentiments such as neglect, oppression in the hand of some officials that go by that name such as the Nigerian Police or the Nigerian Army.

NIGERIA AS A NAME

In the literature on the origin of Nigeria as a name, it first appeared in The Times of London on January 8, 1897 in an essay written by Miss Flora Shaw, who later became the wife of Lord Lugard. Was she sent by God to come up with the term in the word of President Obasanjo? Maybe she was but she did not say so in her essay.

In her essay she was making a case for a shorter term that would be used for the "agglomeration of pagan and Mahomedan States" that was functioning under the official title, "Royal Niger Company Territories". She thought that the term, Royal Niger Company Territories" was too long to be used as a name of a Real Estate Property under the Trading Company in that part of Africa. She was right. That has nothing to do with the people in that part of Africa. What is important in Flora Shaw’s article was that she was in search of a new name and she coined "Nigeria" in preference to such terms as "Central Sudan" that was associated with some geographers and travelers. She thought that the term "Sudan" at this time was associated with a territory in the Nile basin. She then put forward this argument in the Financial Times of London of January 8, 1897 thus:

The name Nigeria applying to no other part of Africa may without offence to any neighbours be accepted  as co-extensive with the territories over which the Royal Niger Company has extended British influence , and may serve to differentiate them equally from the colonies of Lagos and the Niger Protectorate on the coast and from the French territories of the Upper Niger.

What is important in the name coined by Miss Flora Shaw were the following facts:

That Nigeria was to apply to the "agglomeration of pagan and Mahomedan States" meaning the North as we know it today; That the term, Nigeria was to serve to differentiate the area of the Royal Niger Company from other areas. This means that Nigeria was not to apply to Lagos colonies and other Protectorates in the south, meaning the current southern states; That the term Nigeria was to apply to the Royal Niger Company Territories. It should be noted that Sir Frederick Lugard was hired by the Royal Niger Company to bring together under his administration the "Pagan and Mahomedan States". That the name later assumed by the collection of territories amalgamated in 1914 was actually an incorporation of the two system of administration in the south (Lagos Colony and Protectorate) into an existing entity put together under the Royal Niger Company called Nigeria. That the use of a name that was already assumed by the British territories in the north for all the territories amounted to a colossal fraud.

NIGERIA AS A COUNTRY

In the literature on the origin of Nigeria as a country, we are told that it was of a colonial creation, meaning that it was created by the colonial power, the British. This is what we are all told as young people in schools. This is what we, as teachers, have been telling our students. This is what parents should be telling their children. How could anyone associate God with creation of Nigeria under the following circumstances?

The many unjust acts associated with the way the idea of Nigeria was conceived by the British officials; The way the British ran Nigeria and eventually handed over to the preferred group at independence; The way the successive governments ran this country since independence; The way the government of the day is running the affairs of Nigeria since 1999.

Could all the foregoing be associated God? Could this be one way of punishing Nigerians? How could one associate Nigeria with the work of God? The widening inequality everyday ought to have been obvious to the President that it would be unchristian to associate God with an unjust economic or political order.

In a more sophisticated reasoning, we are told that following the "scramble for Africa" in the late 19th Century, Africa was "partitioned" into "real estate property" by and for the Europeans. After the "partitioning of Africa", the present area called Nigeria was allocated to Britain. Consequently, the area occupied by present day Nigeria was allocated to Britain at the Berlin Conference, Britain like other European powers, France, Belgium, Portugal, Germany, Italy and Spain, set out after 1885 to establish "effective occupation" of her "real estate property". One could recall the many studies on this subject such as Saadia Touval, The Boundary Politics in Independent Africa (Harvard University Press, 1972).

"EFFECTIVE OCCUPATION" OF NIGERIA BY BRITAIN

The method of "effective occupation" by Britain varied from one part of the "real estate" to another. Some by outright fraud called "treaty of protection", some by "conquest" and other a mixture of both. Even though in international law there ought to have been a difference, the two forms of "effective occupation" were misapplied in the eventual colonization of Nigeria. What I am trying to say is that the method of "effective occupation" applied by Britain between 1885 and 1900 was different from one part of the "real estate" to another.

What is important was that in the exploitation of the "real estate", the different peoples inhabiting the different areas were taken as part of the real estate, materials and objects of exploitation. Eventually the people developed into the status of "British Subjects". The people inhabiting the British enclave called Nigeria were called "British Subjects" before October 1, 1960. It was under this status that Nigerians qualified to be Knighted and adorned with the tile of Queen Counsel. Have we forgotten that our Armed Forces were called the "Queen’s Own" Nigerian Regiment", etc., etc. President Obasanjo like many officers of his generation was not recruited into the Nigerian Army but into the Queens Own Nigerian Army. Those who were Knighted and given other Honors from London were proud to call themselves "Sir this" and "Sir that" or QC. They did not know or they ought to have known that they were being conferred titles as "British Subjects" and not as "Nigerian Citizens", because there was nothing so called until after October 1, 1960. Nigeria as an actor on the international scene commenced with the formal granting of independence by Britain to the people of the colony on October 1, 1960. A lot of ignorance abounds in Nigeria. Instead of trying to resolve the matter we are further complicating it by attribution of God to the origin of Nigeria.

I had to face my colleagues in the Constituent Assembly with this fact in 1978. The Murtala/Obasanjo military regime had passed a decree on disqualification of persons from the succession election and made it effective from January 15, 1866. I was shocked that this found its way into the Draft Constitution Bill that we were to consider in the Constituent Assembly. The date was discriminatory as the date January 15, 1966 only applied to the date of the first military coup in Nigeria. This was why I pushed for the amendment to the Section of the Draft Constitution on the argument that if the military was interested in cleaning Nigeria of whatever past conduct it found unacceptable, the date should be the date when Nigeria was born. I genuinely believed then and still do so today that the only level playing field in any legislation that purports to treat Nigerians as Nigerians should start from October 1, 1960 and not from any artificial date after then. I am referring to the military’s plan to bar certain persons from January 15, 1966 and my successful amendment in the Constituent Assembly on the ground that the military’s date was discriminatory and did not accord with the historical fact of Nigerians as Nigerians as commencing from October 1, 1960. By an overwhelming vote of 121 to 16, my amendment was carried and the effective date was moved from January 15, 1966 to October 1, 1960. See Volume Three, The Proceedings of the Constituent Assembly 1977/78.

Another important issue we should note was that the method of "effective occupation" of the British "real estate" by Britain did not lead to one British territory called Nigeria. What Britain had in her "real estate" in this part of Africa between 1885 and 1912 were many pieces of "real estate", territories. It should be noted that there was one huge British territory in the north, called the British Protectorate of Northern Nigeria and there were many British territories in the south.

What we should also note that the fact that we had one huge northern territory did not mean that there was one people. Rather there were many northern peoples that were to be made to be subservient to the Sokoto Caliphate with the Headquarters at Kaduna. Britain did not anticipate that a situation would arise where the non-members of the north would aspire to be of the same political status as the members of the Caliphate. The way Lord Lugard characterized the relationship between the Muslim north and others is intriguing. He paid tribute to the unity of the Emirs and the beautiful "dancers of the pagans". He did not see the possibility of the "pagan" i.e. the present day Middle-Belt aspiring to rule in the north. That the "pagans" took to Christianity was as a result of the fact Christian missions were barred from the Muslim north with the school system. In the Middle-Belt the Church was accompanied with the ability to read and write in English that was primarily required in the propagation of the faith. The Hausa/Fulani who took to Christianity along with the pagans became the light in the Muslim north such the late Dr. RAB Dikko and Professor Ishaya Audu.

The other unanswered question was whether the original object of "effective occupation" of the area was to make the Muslim component of the Sokoto Caliphate the only permanent ruler of the north. What about the Muslim component outside the Sokoto Caliphate such as the Borno area that could lay claim to Islam independent of the Sokoto caliphate? This was an issue in 1978 when Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim thought it was the turn of the Kanuri and not of the Fulani to assume the leadership of Nigeria as a candidate of the north. He referred to the pact between the late Sardauna of Sokoto and his father in law, Sir Kashim Ibrahim that leadership of the north would rotate between Sokoto and Borno. He told us in the leadership of the Nigerian peoples party that that was the basis of his decision to vie for the office of President of Nigeria. The then Sultan of Sokoto Sir Saddique Abubakar, was privy to this pact hence, Alhaji Waziri had so many supporters among the princes in Sokoto during the 1978/79 elections. In fact, one of the sons of the Sultan of Sokoto, Sarkin Fada who was the leader of Waziri campaign team in the north died in a motor accident during this period. This was why Alhaji Waziri’s party had a foothold in Sokoto during the 1979 election. I am saying this much to debunk Alhaji Shagari’s account in his memoir of why the north did not support Alhaji Waziri in 1979.

I was privy to why Alhaji Waziri decided to run as the candidate of the north in the 1979 presidential election. He genuinely believed that it was the turn of the Kanuri with the Muslim North in accordance with the pact between Alhaji Ahmadu Bello and Alhaji Kashim Ibrahim on the way the northern leader should rotate between the Caliphate and Borno. As noted above, the north was further complicated by the emergence of Christianity in the non-Caliphate enclave in Plateau, Adamawa, Benue and Niger. Later there were attempts by successors of Britain in the north to make the land and the people of the north into "one north", "one people" and with "one destiny" especially in their dealing with the rest of Nigeria. I was a witness to the way the non-Muslim elements in the north in these States asserted themselves in 1977/78 in the Constituent Assembly and after in the name of the Council of Understanding and Solidarity (CUS) led by Chief Solomon D. Lar.

(culled from www.nigerdeltacongress.com. First published July 2002)

A weak state‘s response to Yar‘Adua‘s AWOL

Written by The Punch/Adebolu Arowolo.

For those who often contest the ranking of Nigeria among weak, poorly governed and distressed nations of the world, the response of the various institutions of government to President Umaru Yar‘Adua‘s protracted absence without official leave (AWOL) should serve as an eye opener. They should now begin to see Nigeria as a nation that requires to be salvaged from the stranglehold of a few people who have effectively hijacked the apparatus and resources of the state to serve parochial interests. Look at the way a clique has deployed state powers to further private and sectional political interests since Yar‘Adua left the country for Saudi Arabia about eight weeks ago.

Using religion effectively as the opium of the people, the cabal started by telling the people not to worry about the yawning power vacuum created by Yar‘Adua‘s absence, but that they should instead go into prayer sessions and vigil for His Excellency‘s good health. Nobody knows how much of public fund was frittered in this evil attempt to buy time and divert attention from official paralysis imposed by Yar‘Adua‘s absence. They were deceitfully using the prayer sessions as a way of escaping from doing the right thing.

As various groups of prayer warriors were being mobilised to Abuja, the office of the Attorney General and Minister of Justice moved immediately to handle the legal aspects of the logjam, making statements that conflict with commonsense and the people‘s interest. For Mr. Aondoakaa, the President could stay outside the country and rule indefinitely from any part of the world. He could set up a new desk in his clinic and relocate the nation‘s headquarters from Abuja to Jeddah or anywhere on the face of the earth. Those who expressed views contrary to Aondoakaa‘s curious stand were dismissed as unpatriotic elements. And as if to prove his point, the 2009 Supplementary Appropriation Bill was taken to Jeddah for the President‘s signature. That only hinted Nigerians that the Presidency had gone offshore and that it might take sometime for Yar’Adua to return home.

Now, more and more crucial state institutions are being sucked into the plot and compromised. We have all heard the case of an Abuja High Court where hearing and judgment were concluded within a record time of three days in favour of a clique that does not want Vice-President Goodluck Jonathan to fully exercise the power of the President. Just like the satanic judgment procured one midnight in 1993 from Bassey Ikpeme‘s court to scuttle a free and pro-people election, the Dan Abutu judgment, which says Jonathan can perform the duties of the President without formally assuming power as Acting President, seems to me like a judicial endorsement of Aondoakaa‘s controversial position on the matter. It is aimed at scuttling the widespread demand for an Acting President.

I laugh whenever I hear people say that, with Abutu‘s judgment, Jonathan can take all decisions on behalf of Yar‘Adua. Are we saying a man whose orders were openly flouted by some ministers only a few weeks ago has changed and become more powerful by that judgment? By these new powers, can he remove ministers and appoint new ones? In case of external aggression or internal upheaval such as the Boko Haram uprising or Jos mayhem, can Jonathan act as the Commander-In-Chief and call out the military to quell sectarian violence or external attack? The plain truth is that Jonathan cannot perform duties not directly assigned to him by Yar‘Adua.

Section 5 (1) of the 1999 Constitution says the President can exercise his powers directly or through the Vice-President and ministers. Section 148(1) also says the President may, in his discretion, assign to the Vice-President or any minister responsibility for any business of the government.

I see no room in these sections where the Vice-President can take independent actions or responsibilities except those assigned to him by the President. Even with Abutu‘s judgment, Jonathan‘s situation has not changed. He still has to take orders from the President. From his BBC interview, Yar‘Adua is still a long way to recovery. With his frail voice and fragile health situation, it is obvious that orders cannot always be proceeding directly from the President. I am not sure his doctors have allowed him to receive calls. Jonathan will therefore have to depend on sources close to the President for directives, as he has done in the past 55 days.

Naturally, the closest person to Yar‘Adua under this dire situation is his wife. It seems to me that the Abutu judgment was arranged to rubber-stamp the presidential-directives-by-proxy system. Abutu himself did not mince words when he said Jonathan would only continue to serve as Vice-President and not as Acting President. But the question remains: why is this cabal running away from giving us an Acting President?

What has revealed the weakness and vulnerability of the Nigerian State is the poor response of the legislators, who are supposed to be the people‘s representatives, to the logjam. Instead of fighting on the side of the people, those in the legislative arm have largely become tools in the hand of those manipulating the polity for selfish reasons. For a long time, the legislators went to join the prayer warriors. When the National Assembly finally found its voice, its decisions failed to defuse tension. The House of Reps. took a laughable decision to take a get-well card to the President in Saudi Arabia. Let them not waste taxpayers‘ money on a frivolous trip abroad

Without giving a time frame, the Senate decided to invite the Secretary to the Federal Government, Yayale Ahmed, to brief it on matters relating to Yar‘Adua‘s health. All we need is a resolution by both chambers, asking the Federal Executive Council to determine Yar‘Adua‘s fitness for the job. I doubt whether they will ever do the right thing. They are rarely found on the side of social justice.

Thus, we have seen a complete paralysis of all the arms and institutions of government. From the Federal Executive Council to the National Assembly and the Judiciary, the response to the power void has been weak and disappointing. All the state institutions have failed to tame tension and arrest the drift. The reason for this, I‘m told, is about who becomes President in 2011. If Yar‘Adua decides not to run owing to ill-health, his camp wants to remain firmly in control in order to pick a successor. If Jonathan becomes Acting President, he may use government machinery to tilt political fortunes on the side of his own anointed candidate. It is the evil cabal behind this crude and predatory political calculation that has been holding the nation to ransom. But this is not altogether unexpected in a country where the public office is largely used as a pathway to wealth.

As owners of the political powers being abused, it is the responsibility of all patriotic citizens to join hands to rebuild the nation‘s institutions. A strong civil society has always been behind every nation that has made progress. That is why it is said that a nation deserves the kind of leadership it has. The easiest way to lose the struggle for a better society is for the people to fold their arms and do nothing. Those who are benefiting from the decay in the land will never voluntarily surrender power. Freedom, as they say, is not something given; it is taken.

Unfortunately, the nation‘s civil society has become especially weak and fragile in the past 10 years. More than ever before, Nigerians are now fragmented along regional, ethnic and religious lines. The “Enough is Enough” rally held in Abuja was spearheaded by aging patriots such as Wole Soyinka. Those committed to the struggle for a better society are well above the age of 50. Where are the youths who are at the receiving end of bad policies? Where are the students of tertiary institutions who will graduate into a huge and congested unemployment market? Where are the workers‘ unions? Where are the farmers? Where are the Okada riders and other victims of bad governance?

The fragmentation of the civil society has made it possible for a few unpatriotic people to corner the state and its resources for their own selfish use. The civil rights movement made America the great nation that it now is. When are we going to come together to build a great future for ourselves and generations yet unborn?

(www.punchng.com)

Yar’Adua’s Obituary

Written by Rudolf Ogoo Okonkwo

Just like you and I, Yar’Adua will die. Someday. I want to be the first to write his obituary. It is the greatest honor I can give to the man. Yar’Adua should be able to read it while resting comfortably in his hospital bed. Not many people will have such a privilege. So here you go, Mr. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua:

There lies a sick man stranded at the presidency. The damage he wrecked could only be accessed posthumously. Beneath his grave is the bile of our epilogue.

Mr. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, the second president of Nigeria’s fourth republic, was tied to the presidential stake by the devil himself. (Yes, there is a devil. And his name is Olusegun Obasanjo).

Yar’Adua spared nobody of any pretension to leadership, so we should spare him no pretension to polite tribute.

Yar’Adua’s era had no poetry. His days had no imagination. If not for his sickness, he could as well have been an anonymous president. I can bet my last naira that no parent named their child Umaru or Musa or Yar’Adua as a consequence of his sojourn at the presidency.

Yar’Adua subverted whatever remained of the Nigerian spirit. He never had a cult. He never had a worshiper. He was an unfinished failure. He was a god that did not make it.

As the governor of Kastina state, Yar’Adua instituted the sharia law that sentenced Amina Lawal to death for adultery. She was to be stoned to death. Later an appeal court freed her. No appeal court could free Yar’Adua’s daughters from being auctioned to the highest bidder.

If Yar’Adua only stole the cup of invincibility from Nigeria, it would have been pardonable. But he dropped it into a latrine. The adventures of Yar’Adua would make for a bad children’s coloring book. His gargantuan body of achievement dwarfed those of the legendry turtle. Yar’Adua proved that if you change the clothes without changing the diaper, what stinks will continue to stink. He distinguished himself as an arch-Nigerian- ignoramus hanging on the wing of inaction.

He whetted no man’s appetite. He brought no smile on any citizen’s face. His posture was uninspiring. His program was invisible. He was too pathetic to be laughed at. Our eternal respect for him was in his complete lack of comic value. There was no distinction to be made between his government and the government of a dash.

Before Yar’Adua, the universally acclaimed mantra was that, “Nigeria is the only country in the world where the best is impossible and the worst never happens.” But after Yar’Adua, Nigeria became a country where the worst is impossible and the best never happens. In essence, Nigeria hit the bottom after Yar’Adua.

Before Yar’Adua, Nigeria was governed by two kinds of leaders. It was either “a fool surrounded by idiots or an idiot surrounded by fools.” It was Yar’Adua that first established a government led by a dead man surrounded by vultures. What comes after Yar’Adua will be a government of vultures surrounded by dead men.

I have often argued that the problem with Nigerian leaders was that they forget that they were mortals. Yar’Adua proved that men who are conscious of their mortality will not necessarily perform any better. While Yar’Adua daily knocked on the door of hell, his wife, Turai, was busy stuffing oil blocks inside her bra.

Yar’Adua will forever live in one mythology – his was the definitive proof of how not to be president. He performed so woefully that if Nigerians were people who valued excellence, they would staple a tail to his corpse. So that when he reincarnates and aspires to a leadership position, he will be promptly identified and quarantined.

Yar’Adua studied Analytical Chemistry at ABU but had no understanding of the law of Thermodynamics. On its own, heat cannot flow from an area of cold to an area of hot, says the second law. Yet, Yar’Adua’s Vision 2020 hoped to go from an area of cold to an area of hot on its own.

Faraday's Law states that “the weight of any element liberated during electrolysis is proportional to the quantity of electricity passing through the cell and also to the equivalent weight of the element.” What Yar’Adua did not grasp at school was that this law means that the moral authority of any politician following an election is proportional to the amount of fraud that took place during the electoral process and also to the moral state of the politician.

Yar’Adua was the last “Nigerian” president. Hundred years from now, when the history of that territory formerly called Nigeria is written, historians will note that it was Yar’Adua who finally brought an end to the farce. They will note that his physical ailment was a reminder to the people trapped in that dead and dirty pond that they, too, were sick. The predicament of Yar’Adua was the predicament of the Nigerian lot - an incapability to know when to quit.

If the tears of the downtrodden did not make him raise a finger against corruption, nothing else would. If the histrionics of the vultures around him did not make him question his reality, nothing else would. If an obituary like this did not make him rethink his legacy, nothing else would.

May his soul, and the soul of all those who die, unnecessarily, every day, in that occupied territory, rest in peace.

In lieu of dancing in the street, play squash in honor of the dead president. In lieu of flowers, send assault weapons to his gun-loving son.

(culled from www.saharareporters.com, Wednesday, 02 December 2009)

Restructuring the (Nigerian) Federation (2)

Written by Edwin Madunagu

IN the first part of this piece, I posed four related questions: One: What type of federation is currently being operated in Nigeria? Two: What type of federation is prescribed by the 1999 Constitution? Three: What type of federation is desirable in Nigeria? Four: What social-political forces currently exist, or can be created, to fight for the realisation of a desirable federal system? Having looked at aspects of the first two questions we may now turn to the last two.

In lieu of preface, let us briefly review relevant experiences in five countries - three of which no longer exist: the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Somalia and Rwanda. In 1922, the Soviet Union was constituted as a Union of 15 constituent republics. The Constitution granted each republic the right to self-determination up to, and including, the right to secede from the Union. The ruling Bolshevik Party was serious about the secession clause and, to demonstrate this, the Union was constituted in such a way that each Union republic shared borders with at least one foreign country. This made secession, if decided upon, practicable. A "land-locked" republic, completely surrounded by some other Union republics, would find it impossible to secede. The same principle and practical approach informed the constitution of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.

The first two of these three countries - the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia - disintegrated peacefully in the early 1990s partly because none of their constituent, or federating, republics was "land-locked'. Yugoslavia, with six constituent republics, could have gone the same way but for a factor which we in Nigeria must ponder seriously: Serb nationalists within and outside Serbia - the largest constituent republic - did not want the break-up of the country. But when disintegration became inevitable, Serb nationalists responded with two alternative strategies: to create a Greater Serbia by incorporating, into Serbia, ethnic Serbs outside Serbia, or to create independent Serb enclaves in constituent republics dominated by non-Serbs. We know the result.

Somalia has no "ethnic problem" as such. Beyond that the country is a Muslim majority nation. What happened in 1991 was that an attempted coup d'etat led to a break-up of the country into armed clans that descended into parallel civil wars and anarchy. Somalia has had no central government since then. And the country is today a model of "failed state". The tragedy of ethnic-divided Rwanda is still fresh in our collective memory: An armed struggle to remove a government in 1994 led to the assassination of a president and triggered the slaughter of almost a million people. Nigeria has profound lessons to learn from the experiences of these five countries - that is, if the lessons of our (1967-1970) Civil War are not sufficient.

Now to Nigeria. I subscribe to a geopolitical restructuring of the country as an immediate task. As basis for this particular discussion we may turn to the Draft Constitution proposed in August 2006 by Peoples' National Conference (PNC). In place of the present 36-state structure, the draft Constitution proposed a federation of 18 ethnically-based regions. Twelve of the regions are mono-ethnic and six are multi-ethnic. A map of Nigeria's ethnic nationalities sharing the 18 regions is shown on the cover of the document.

The proposed mono-ethnic nationality regions, each of which is proposed as a federation, are, in alphabetical order: Ibibio, Ijaw, Igbo, Urhobo, Edo, Yoruba, Tiv, Nupe, Fulah, Gbagyi, Kanuri, and Hausa. The six multi-ethnic nationality regions, each of which is also proposed as a federation, are: South East, East Delta, West Delta, West Middle Belt, Central Middle Belt, and East Middle Belt. According to the draft Constitution under review, the federating entities in the Federal Republic of Nigeria will be the regions. State creation will be the responsibility of the regions and the states will be responsible for the creation of local government areas.

My first observation here is that the People's National Conference actually took pains to list Nigeria's ethnic nationalities in the Draft Constitution. This should be commended. This level of thoroughness and seriousness has set a standard for what has to be done to produce a new Constitution for Nigeria. It also reminds me of what Chief Tayo Akpata said recently in an interview, namely, that the task of reviewing or re-writing the Constitution is too serious to be left entirely in the hands of the National Assembly. Chief Akpata, the Ima of Benin, is a veteran progressive politician and administrator and - before then - an activist nationalist. Yes, a new Constitution which is as inevitable as it is desirable - if the country must survive and remain one - cannot be, and must not be, the exclusive task of the National Assembly.

The second observation is that going by the proposed restructuring based on the Ethnic Nationalities Map of Nigeria on the cover and last page of the document before me, some of the 18 proposed federating regions are actually "land-locked" in the sense the term has been used in this piece. The "land-locked" regions, as I can see, include: Edo, Igbo, Central Middle-Belt, Nupe and Gbagyi. Maybe there are more; but that is what I can see. The point is that the Draft Constitution includes the secession clause - which I endorse completely. But it does not provide for the practicability of secession by ensuring that no federating region is "land-locked". To this I object - also completely.

The third observation strengthens the main fear I have concerning restructuring along ethnic nationality lines, or rather, along strictly ethnic nationality lines. Drawing the boundaries in some areas will be almost impossible through conferences - whether national or not, whether sovereign or not. It can be done only through war or other forms of armed imposition. Let me say here - with all responsibility and humility - that I was one of the first to propose the (regional) restructuring of Nigeria and I was also one of the first to introduce the term Sovereign National Conference (SNC). This was as early as 1992. But I knew, and still know, the limits of conferences in dealing with the question of power - especially when rapacious, selfish, oppressive, anti-people, capitalist-oriented and utterly unpatriotic classes and blocs, as in Nigeria, are in power.

We may summarise the three points so far made: the listing of ethnic nationalities is a commendable undertaking; some proposed regions are "land-locked", and this is problematic, to say the least; and there are limits to what conferences can achieve in drawing up boundaries between ethnic nationalities in Nigeria. But having said this, I have to re-state my belief that Nigeria has to be restructured and reconstituted, through appropriate constitutional arrangements, along lines that eliminate ethnic domination, enhance self-determination at the grassroots, promote popular political participation, radically raise the quality of life across the whole country and radically reduce regional disparities. This is a big agenda.

Adopting current political language, I support resource control, fiscal federalism and true federalism. In particular, I see no difference between Regions collecting revenues and paying taxes or making contributions to the Federal Government and Federal Government collecting revenues and sharing with the Regions. All provided, of course, that the principles are clear and just and, more importantly, provided, that popular-democratic and pan-Nigerian forces are in power.

Yes. The social forces that can fight for a just and democratic restructuring must be popular-democratic (and in the present historical context, also radical and revolutionary) and pan-Nigerian. Any social forces that already believe that Nigeria must either break up or be restructured strictly along ethnic nationality lines cannot fight for the type of restructuring that I believe is desirable and realisable. I am not afraid of disintegration. I am only afraid of the inevitable bloody process - given the history and experiences of Nigeria and the level of national integration. Why should one be afraid? If the ruling classes and blocks continue to behave as if Nigeria is their property and Nigerians are their slaves - to exploit as they wish - and if popular-democratic and pan-Nigerian forces cannot remove them from power, then a fate worse than disintegration will befall us.

We now come to the question of governmental structure at the centre. I shall be sketchy and will draw from the interview, earlier mentioned, that was recently granted by Chief Tayo Akpata to The Guardian and published in the paper's edition of Sunday, July 5, 2009. Modifying Chief Akpata's suggestion, we may proposed two possible systems - each of which is a mixture of presidential and parliamentary systems of government. In the first system, a newly elected National Assembly meets to elect members of the Presidential Council - one member for each federating region. The Council is chaired, in rotation, by its members.

The Collective and Rotational Presidency described above may either be an executive one or share executive power with a cabinet headed by a Prime Minister. Each alternative produces a different system. Finally, for any new system, the measure of its desirability, in the final analysis, is the degree to which the working and toiling people, together with all other oppressed segments of the population, including women, liberate themselves and assume control of their lives and the means of reproducing their lives and, by so doing, liberate the society as a whole. In other words, without a promise of popular liberation neither the present Nigeria nor a restructured one is desirable.

* Concluded.

(culled from www.nigerialog.com)